Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24416173›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A low complexity rapid molecular method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool.

Cathal J McElgunn, Clint R Pereira, Nicholas J Parham, James E Smythe, Michael J Wigglesworth, Anna Smielewska, Surendra A Parmar, Olga A Gandelman, Nicholas M Brown, Laurence C Tisi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nucleic acid sample preparation from whole blood in a paper microfluidic device using isotachophoresis.Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cathal J McElgunnLumora Ltd, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Clint R PereiraLumora Ltd, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Nicholas J ParhamPublic Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
James E SmytheLumora Ltd, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Michael J WigglesworthLumora Ltd, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Anna SmielewskaPublic Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Surendra A ParmarPublic Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Olga A GandelmanLumora Ltd, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Nicholas M BrownPublic Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Laurence C TisiLumora Ltd, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Martin D CurranPublic Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBPublic Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here we describe a method for the detection of Clostridium difficile from stool using a novel low-complexity and rapid extraction process called Heat Elution (HE). The HE method is two-step and takes just 10 minutes, no specialist instruments are required and there is minimal hands-on time. A test method using HE was developed in conjunction with Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) combined with the real-time bioluminescent reporter system known as BART targeting the toxin B gene (tcdB). The HE-LAMP-BART method was evaluated in a pilot study on clinical fecal samples (tcdB(+), n = 111; tcdB(-), n= 107). The HE-LAMP-BART method showed 95.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity against a gold standard reference method using cytotoxigenic culture and also a silica-based robotic extraction followed by tcdB PCR to control for storage. From sample to result, the HE-LAMP-BART method typically took 50 minutes, whereas the PCR method took >2.5 hours. In a further study (tcdB(+), n = 47; tcdB(-), n= 28) HE-LAMP-BART was compared to an alternative commercially available LAMP-based method, Illumigene (Meridian Bioscience, OH), and yielded 87.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the HE-LAMP-BART method compared to 76.6% and 100%, respectively, for Illumigene against the reference method. A subset of 27 samples (tcdB(+), n = 25; tcdB(-), n= 2) were further compared between HE-LAMP-BART, Illumigene, GeneXpert (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) and RIDA®QUICK C. difficile Toxin A/B lateral flow rapid test (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany) resulting in sensitivities of HE-LAMP-BART 92%, Illumigene 72% GeneXpert 96% and RIDAQuick 76% against the reference method. The HE-LAMP-BART method offers the advantages of molecular based approaches without the cost and complexity usually associated with molecular tests. Further, the rapid time-to-result and simple protocol means the method can be applied away from the centralized laboratory settings.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficileFecesGene DosageHumansModels, BiologicalMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesReagent Kits, DiagnosticReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificityReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID24416173
PMCPMC3885522
OpenAlexW2035319503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.